Argument: The future is thought to be a place where the body and technology merge. This merging creates a "machine man" that becomes a part of technology, and like technology is controlled by another. The exertion of power over the "machine man" is shown through violence done to him and his manipulation into conducting violent acts.
¨
11 comments:
Hey! Great project! I really liked your argument and it was easy to follow.
My question for you comes from Hailey’s project, where she mentioned that it was similar to the holocaust and the Jews, where they were all living together. Well your project seemed to have that same discrimination argument. That once scene you showed where they burned the naked bodies and then brought new people in without feeling bad about it. I feel like your movie is playing off of that, considering the time period. What do you think about that idea about discrimination?
My question was how the freeze frame picture of the workers that you compared to the slave portrait played into your argument, or I guess really what point was being made about that shot?
In regard to Aubrey's question:
I agree my film does discriminate. Actually when I read up about the film I learned that the whole purpose of Fritz Lang creating this movie was to shine light on class discriminations. So, the workers were obviously the lower class and they were stuck running the machines and basically the city of Metropolis. So, there is definitely discrimination in my film that parallels the Holocaust, since the workers like the Jews were viewed as inferior to the others in that society.
In regard to Ashley's question:
The point of that shot was to show that the cinematic language. The shot applied the one third theory and I was able to show the worker's body actually interacting with technology and further more prove its inferiority based on posture and the lack of a face which directly compares to the slave portrait whose inferiority was shown in the same way. I'm sorry I did not clearly explain that in my presentation.
I thought your project was so good! It was structured so well and you could really tell that you practiced. I have two questions for you. 1. Were the machine people completely fabricated by the big machine man or were they real people at one point in time? 2. Do you think that they ever have a chance at normal life or will they always be programmed to work and nothing else?
Hailey your so nice. Thank you for the compliments! To answer your questions:
1. The workers are real people but since they are limited to working with the machines, they live a very dreary life where they work 10hrs a day so I assumed that because of this routine and lack of power to choose what they want to do with their time like the thinkers they became machine like. Maybe I was confusing, they are not actual machines but they are treated as if they are by the thinkers.
2. In the end of the movie there seemed to be hope for a better life for the workers. Maria inspired hope in the workers by saying a mediator will soon come and the mediator is the heart. In the end Freder appears to be the mediator between the mind (his father) and the body (the workers). This future was never shown but the ending was very hopeful!
My question is in regards to Maria? Who is she and how does she fit into the argument? I found it interesting that in such an old film a woman would be one to have power and bring hope to others. I guess I just want to know what her role was and if it was important that she was a woman.
I though you did a great job, especially with the silent film. You were able to anazlyze the shots and techniques instead. I was wondering if you thought gender played much of a part in the film? Was the fact that Maria was a symbol of hope because she was a woman?
Hey good job. I liked how you really analyzed your clips. Really good job with that. I was kind of confused about something though. Were the machine men, really machines? Or were they just people born to do this work. If they were real people, who decided who these people were, and was there a criteria?
Thanks for all the compliments guys! In regards to Megan and Katie's question (since ya'lls questions are really similar):
Maria was a symbol of hope to the workers because she was the one who told the workers of a better life. Her famous quote is that "the mediator between the mind and the body is the heart" meaning that a mediator (kind of like a savior) will come to mend the relationship between the workers and the thinkers. In the film she also brought the workers children above the earth to the thinkers and said "look at your brothers", this was the first time Freder encountered her and he went down to the workers city in search of her. To be honest I did not pay much attention to the fact that she was a woman but I do agree this is a bold statement. But I think she was mainly used because "false Maria" was used as a seducer (who preformed dances for the thinker men) and she caused the riot of the workers so her gender was actually used in a stereotypical manner for most of the movie. But it was balanced by the hope she provided to the workers.
In regard to Mark's question:
The workers who I referred to in my presentation as "machine men" were not really machines. They were just humans who lived a dreary life which I compared to machines. I am not sure exactly who told them they had to be workers but this is what I gathered from the film. Two classes came to existence the workers and the thinkers, the children of the workers just continued to be workers, there was no switching up to being thinkers. But, the father of Metropolis, Joh Frederson probably played a big role in what each person did because he fired Josaphat and pretty much changed his status to a worker. Also, one of the workers switched lives with Freder and took on his identity and therefore became a thinker. Obviously not many thinkers would switch with the workers though.
You focused most of your argument on the machine worker men in the film, which I thought was a very strong cinematic argument. You said that the workers are constructed in the film as powerless and the lower class. In silent film, the visuals really dominate the communicated message, since there usually isn't much dialogue to get that message across. How are the powerful people constructed? Are there cinematic techniques used to directly contrast the thinkers with the workers?
In response to Emma:
I think your point is extremely interesting. The powerful people in this film are the thinkers who are represented through Joh Frederson and his son Freder. Freder is the complete opposite of the machine men, in the scene I showed in class his clothing directly contrasts the dark clothing of the workers, his face is given a lot of emphasis and unlike the machine bodies of the workers, Freder is characterized by emotion. Therefore, I would argue that the cinematic language of the powerful bodies directly contrast the cinematic language of the inferior worker bodies.
Post a Comment